Network Working Group A. Atlas
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Informational J. Halpern
Expires: January 16, 2014 Ericsson
S. Hares
ADARA
D. Ward
Cisco Systems
T. Nadeau
Juniper Networks
July 15, 2013
An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing System
draft-atlas-i2rs-architecture-01
Abstract
This document describes an architecture for a standard, programmatic
interface for state transfer in and out of the Internet's routing
system. It describes the basic architecture, the components, and
their interfaces with particular focus on those to be standardized as
part of I2RS.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Functional Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Architectural Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Key Architectural Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Simplicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Model-Driven Programmatic Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Authorization and Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Network Applications and I2RS Client . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Example Network Application: Topology Manager . . . . . . 11
5. I2RS Agent Role and Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Relationship to its Routing Element . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. State Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.1. Starting and Ending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.2. Reversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Interactions with Local Config . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. Routing Components and Associated I2RS Services . . . . . 14
5.4.1. Unicast and Multicast RIB and LFIB . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4.2. IGPs, BGP and Multicast Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4.3. MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.4.4. Policy and QoS Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. I2RS Client Agent Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Protocol Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.3. Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.4. Identity and Security Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.5. Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.6. Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.7. Information collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.8. Multi-Headed Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.9. Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
1. Introduction
Routers that form the Internet's routing infrastructure maintain
state at various layers of detail and function. For example, a
typical router maintains a Routing Information Base (RIB), and
implements routing protocols such as OSPF, ISIS, BGP to exchange
protocol state and other information about the state of the network
with other routers.
A router also has information that may be required for applications
to understand the network, verify that programmed state is installed
in the forwarding plane, measure the behavior of various flows,
routes or forwarding entries, as well as understand the configured
and active states of the router. Furthermore, routers are typically
configured with procedural or policy-based instructions that tell
them how to convert all of this information into the forwarding
operations that are installed in the forwarding plane. It is also
the active state information that describes the expected and observed
operational behavior of the router.
This document sets out an architecture for a common, standards-based
interface to this information. This Interface to the Routing System
(I2RS) facilitates control and diagnosis of the RIB manager's state,
as well as enabling network applications to be built on top of
today's routed networks. The I2RS is a programmatic asynchronous
interface for transferring state into and out of the Internet's
routing system, and recognizes that the routing system and a router's
OS provide useful mechanisms that applications could harness to
accomplish application-level goals.
Fundamental to the I2RS are clear data models that define the
semantics of the information that can be written and read. The I2RS
provides a framework for registering for and requesting the
appropriate information for each particular application. The I2RS
provides a way for applications to customize network behavior while
leveraging the existing routing system as much as desired.
The I2RS, and therefore this document, are specifically focused on an
interface for routing and forwarding data.
1.1. Functional Overview
There are four key aspects to the I2RS. First, the interface is a
programmatic interface which needs to be asynchronous and offers
fast, interactive access. Second, the I2RS gives access to
information and state that is not usually configurable or modeled in
existing implementations or configuration protocols. Third, the I2RS
gives applications the ability to learn additional, structured,
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
filterable information and events from the router. Fourth, the I2RS
will be data-model driven to facilitate extensibility and provide
standard data-models to be used by network applications.
I2RS is described as an asynchronous programmatic interface; the key
properties of which are described in Section 5 of
[I-D.atlas-i2rs-problem-statement].
Such an interface facilitates the specification of implicitly non-
permanent state into the routing system, that can optionally be made
permanent. In addition, the extraction of that information and
additional dynamic information from the routing system is a critical
component of the interface. A non-routing protocol or application
could inject state into a routing element via the state-insertion
aspects of the I2RS and that state could then be distributed in a
routing or signaling protocol and/or be used locally (e.g. to program
the co-located forwarding plane).
There are several types of information that the I2RS will facilitate
an I2RS Client obtaining. These range from dynamic event
notifications (e.g. changes to a particular next-hop, interface up/
down, etc.)to information collection streams (statistics, topology,
route changes, etc) to simply read operations. The I2RS provides the
ability for an I2RS client to request filtered and thresholded
information as well as events.
The existing mechanisms, such as SNMP and NetConf, that allow state
to be written and read do not meet all of the key properties given in
[I-D.atlas-i2rs-problem-statement] for I2RS. The overhead of
infrastructure can be quite high and many MIBs do not, in definition
or practice, allow writing of state. There is also very limited
capability to add new application-specific state to be distributed
via the routing system.
ForCES is another data-model-driven method for writing state into a
router, but its focus is on the forwarding plane. By focusing on the
forwarding plane, it requires that the forwarding plane be modeled
and programmable and ignores the existence and intelligence of the
router OS and routing system. ForCES provides a lower-level
interface than I2RS is intended to address.
1.2. Architectural Overview
The figure in Figure 1 shows the basic architecture for I2RS. Inside
a Routing Element, the I2RS agent interacts with both the routing
subsystem and with local configuration. A network application uses
an I2RS client to communicate with one or more I2RS agents on their
routing elements. The scope of I2RS is to define the interactions
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
between the I2RS agent and the I2RS client and the associated proper
behavior of the I2RS agent and I2RS client.
*********************** ***********************
* Application A * * Application B *
* * * *
* +----------------+ * * +----------------+ *
* | Client A | * * | Client B | *
* +----------------+ * * +----------------+ *
******* ^ ************* ***** ^ ****** ^ ******
| | |
| -----------------------| |
| | |
******* v ***** v ************ ************** v **********
* +----------------+ * * +----------------+ *
* | Agent 1 | * * | Agent 2 | *
* +----------------+ * * +----------------+ *
* ^ ^ ^ * * ^ ^ ^ *
* | | | * * | | | *
* v | v * * v | v *
* *********** | ********** * * *********** | ********* *
* * Routing * | * Local * * * * Routing * | * Local * *
* *********** | * Config * * * *********** | * Config* *
* | ********** * * | ********* *
* v * * v *
* ************ * * *********** *
* * Dynamic * * * * Dynamic * *
* * System * * * * System * *
* * State * * * * State * *
* ************ * * *********** *
* * * *
* Routing Element 1 * * Routing Element 2 *
****************************** ***************************
Figure 1: Architecture of I2RS clients and agents
Routing Element: A Routing Element implements at least some portion
of the routing system. It does not need to have a forwarding
plane associated with it. Examples of Routing Elements can
include:
A router with a forwarding plane and RIB Manager that runs
ISIS, OSPF, BGP, PIM, etc.
A server that runs BGP as a Route Reflector
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
An LSR that implements RSVP-TE, OSPF-TE, and PCEP and has a
forwarding plane and associated RIB Manager.
A server that runs ISIS, OSPF, BGP and uses ForCES to control a
remote forwarding plane.
A Routing Element may be locally managed, whether via CLI, SNMP,
or NetConf.
Routing: This block represents that portion of the Routing Element
that implements part of the Internet routing system. It includes
not merely standardized protocols (i.e. IS-IS, OSPF, BGP, PIM,
RSVP-TE, LDP, etc.), but also the RIB Manager layer.
Local Config: A Routing Element will provide the ability to
configure and manage it. The Local Config may be provided via a
combination of CLI, NetConf, SNMP, etc. The black box behavior
for interactions between the state that I2RS installs into the
routing element and the Local Config must be defined.
Dynamic System State: An I2RS agent needs access to state on a
routing element beyond what is contained in the routing subsystem.
Such state may include various counters, statistics, and local
events. How this information is provided to the I2RS agent is out
of scope, but the standardized information and data models for
what is exposed are part of I2RS.
I2RS Agent: The I2RS agent implements the I2RS protocol(s) and
interacts with the routing element to provide specified behavior.
Application: A network application that needs to manipulate the
network to achieve its service requirements.
I2RS Client: The I2RS client implements the I2RS protocol(s). It
interacts with other elements of the policy, provisioning, and
configuration system by means outside of the scope of the I2RS
effort. It interacts with the I2RS clients to collect information
from the routing and forwarding system. Based on the information
and the policy oriented interactions, the I2RS client may also
interact with the I2RS agent to modify the state of the routing
system the client interacts with to achieve operational goals.
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
As can be seen in Figure 1, an I2RS client can communicate with
multiple I2RS agents. An I2RS client may connect to one or more I2RS
agents based upon its needs. Similarly, an I2RS agent may
communicate with multiple I2RS clients - whether to respond to their
requests, to send notifications, etc. Timely notifications are
critical so that several simultaneously operating applications have
up-to-date information on the state of the network.
As can also be seen in Figure 1, an I2RS Agent may communicate with
multiple clients. Each client may send the agent a variety of write
operations. The handling of this situation has been a source of
discussion in the working group. In order to keep the protocol
simple, the current view is that two clients should not be attempting
to write (modify) the same piece of information. Such collisions may
happen, but are considered error cases that should be resolved by the
network applications and management systems.
Multiple I2RS clients may need to supply data into the same list
(e.g. a prefix or filter list); this is not considered an error and
must be correctly handled. The nuances so that writers do not
normally collide should be handled in the information models.
The architectural goal for the I2RS is that such errors should
produce predictable behaviors, and be reportable to interested
clients. The details of the associated policy is discussed in
Section 6.8. The same policy mechanism (simple priority per I2RS
client) applies to interactions between the I2RS agent and the CLI/
SNMP/NetConf as described in Section 5.3.
In addition it must be noted that there may be indirect interactions
between write operations. Detection and avoidance of such
interactions is outside the scope of the I2RS work and is left to
agent design and implementation for now. [[Editor's note: This topic
needs more discussion in the working group.]]
2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document.
agent or I2RS Agent: An I2RS agent provides the supported I2RS
services to the local system's routing sub-systems. The I2RS
agent understands the I2RS protocol and can be contacted by I2RS
clients.
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
client or I2RS Client: A client speaks the I2RS protocol to
communicate with I2RS Agents and uses the I2RS services to
accomplish a task. An I2RS client can be seen as the part of an
application that uses and supports I2RS and could be a software
library.
service or I2RS Service: For the purposes of I2RS, a service refers
to a set of related state access functions together with the
policies that control their usage. The expectation is that a
service will be represented by a data-model. For instance, 'RIB
service' could be an example of a service that gives access to
state held in a device's RIB.
read scope: The set of information which the I2RS client is
authorized to read. This access includes the permission to see
the existence of data and the ability to retrieve the value of
that data.
write scope: The set of field values which the I2RS client is
authorized to write (i.e. add, modify or delete). This access can
restrict what data can be modified or created, and what specific
value sets and ranges can be installed.
scope: When unspecified as either read scope or write scope, the
term scope applies to both the read scope and write scope.
resources: A resource is an I2RS-specific use of memory, storage,
or execution that a client may consume due to its I2RS operations.
The amount of each such resource that a client may consume in the
context of a particular agent can be constrained based upon the
client's security role. An example of such a resource could
include the number of notifications registered for. These are not
protocol-specific resources or network-specific resources.
role or security role: A security role specifies the scope,
resources, priorities, etc. that a client or agent has.
identity: A client is associated with exactly one specific
identity. State can be attributed to a particular identity. It
is possible for multiple communication channels to use the same
identity; in that case, the assumption is that the associated
client is coordinating such communication.
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
3. Key Architectural Properties
3.1. Simplicity
There have been many efforts over the years to improve the access to
the information known to the routing and forwarding system. Making
such information visible and usable to network management and
applications has many well-understood benefits. There are two
related challenges in doing so. First, the span of information
potentially available is very large. Second, the variation both in
the structure of the data and in the kinds of operations required
tends to introduce protocol complexity.
Having noted that, it is also critical to the utility of I2RS that it
be easily deployed and robust. Complexity in the protocol hinders
implementation, robustness, and deployability. Also, complexity in
the data models frequently makes it harder to extend rather than
easier.
Thus, one of the key aims for I2RS is the keep the protocol and
modeling architecture simple. So for each architectural component or
aspect, we ask ourselves "do we need this complexity, or is the
behavior merely nice to have?" Protocol parsimony is clearly a goal.
3.2. Extensibility
There are several ways that the scope of the I2RS work is being
restricted in the interests of achieving a deliverable and deployable
result. We are only working on the models to be used over the single
identified interface. We are only looking at modeling a subset of
the data of interest. And we are probably only representing a subset
of the operations that may eventually be needed (although there is
some hope that we are closer on that aspect than others to what is
needed.) Thus, it is important to consider extensibility not only of
the underlying services' data models, but also of the primitives and
protocol operations.
At the same time, it is clearly desirable for the data models and
protocol operations we define in the I2RS to be useful the in more
general settings. It should be easy to integrate data models from
the I2RS with other data. Other work should be able to easily extend
it to represent additional aspects of the network elements or network
systems. Hence, the data model and protocol definitions need to be
designed to be highly extensible, preferably in a regular and simple
fashion.
3.3. Model-Driven Programmatic Interfaces
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
A critical component of I2RS is the standard information and data
models with their associated semantics. While many components of the
routing system are standardized, associated data models for them are
not yet available. Instead, each router uses different information,
different mechanisms, and different CLI which makes a standard
interface for use by applications extremely cumbersome to develop and
maintain. Well-known data modeling languages exist and may be used
for defining the data models for I2RS.
There are several key benefits for I2RS in using model-driven
architecture and protocol(s). First, it allows for transferring
data-models whose content is not explicitly implemented or
understood. Second, tools can automate checking and manipulating
data; this is particularly valuable for both extensibility and for
the ability to easily manipulate and check proprietary data-models.
The different services provided by I2RS can correspond to separate
data-models. An I2RS agent may indicate which data-models are
supported.
3.4. Authorization and Authentication
All control exchanges between the I2RS client and agent MUST be
authenticated and integrity protected (such that the contents cannot
be changed without detection). Manipulation of the system must be
accurately attributable. In an ideal architecture, even information
collection and notification should be protected; this may be subject
to engineering tradeoffs during the design.
I2RS Agents, in performing information collection and manipulation,
will be acting on behalf of the I2RS clients. As such, they will
operate based on the lower of the two permissions of the agent itself
and of the client.
I2RS clients may be operating on behalf of other applications. While
those applications' identities are not need for authorization, each
application should have a unique opaque identifier that can be
provided by the I2RS client to the I2RS agent for purposes of
tracking attribution of operations.
4. Network Applications and I2RS Client
An I2RS Client has a standardized interface that uses the I2RS
protocol(s) to communicate with I2RS Agents. The interface between
an I2RS client and the network applications is outside the scope of
I2RS.
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
When an I2RS Client interacts with multiple network applications,
that I2RS Client is behaving as a go-between and may indicate this to
the I2RS Agents by, for example, specifying a secondary opaque
identity to allow improved troubleshooting.
A network application that uses an I2RS client may also be considered
a routing element and include an I2RS agent for interactions.
However, where the needed information and data models for that upper
interface differs from that of a conventional routing element, those
models are, at least initially, out of scope for I2RS.
4.1. Example Network Application: Topology Manager
One example of such an application is a Topology Manager. Such an
application includes an I2RS client which uses the I2RS protocol to
collect information about the state of the network. The Topology
Manager would collect device and interface state from devices it
interacts with directly. It also collects routing configuration and
operation data from those devices. Most importantly, it collects
information about the routing system, including the contents of the
IGP (e.g. IS-IS or OSPF) and BGP data sets. This information is
provided to the I2RS client using the I2RS data models and protocols.
The Topology Manager may be an integral part of an application. It
would build internal data structures, and use the collected data to
drive applications like path computations or anomalous routing
detection. Alternatively, the Topology manager could combine the
I2RS collected data with other information, abstract the result, and
provide a coherent picture of the network state over another
interface. That interface might use the same I2RS protocols, and
could use extensions of the I2RS data models. Developing such
mechanisms is outside the initial scope of the I2RS work.
5. I2RS Agent Role and Functionality
The I2RS Agent is part of a routing element. As such, it has
relationships with that routing element as a whole, and with various
components of that routing element.
5.1. Relationship to its Routing Element
A Routing Element may be implemented with a wide variety of different
architectures: an integrated router, a split architecture,
distributed architecture, etc. The architecture does not need to
affect the general I2RS agent behavior.
For scalability and generality, the I2RS agent may be responsible for
collecting and delivering large amounts of data from various parts of
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
the routing element. Those parts may or may not actually be part of
a single physical device. Thus, for scalability and robustness, it
is important that the architecture allow for a distributed set of
reporting components providing collected data from the I2RS agent
back to the relevant I2RS clients. As currently envisioned, a given
I2RS agent would have only one locus per I2RS service for
manipulation of routing element state.
5.2. State Storage
State modification requests are sent to the I2RS agent in a network
element by I2RS clients. The I2RS agent is responsible for applying
these changes to the system. How much data must the I2RS Agent store
about these state-modifying operations, and with what persistence?
There are range of possible answers. One extreme is where it stores
nothing, cannot indicate why or by whom state was placed into the
routing element, and relies on clients reapplying things in all
possible cases. The other extreme is where multiple clients'
overlapping operations are stored and managed, as is done in the RIB
for routes with a preference or priority to pick between the routes.
In answering this question, this architecture tries to provide
sufficient power to keep client operations effective, while still
being simple to implement in the I2RS Agent, and to observe
meaningfully during operation. The I2RS agent stores the set of
operations it has applied. Simply, the I2RS agent stores who did
what operation to which entity. New changes replace any data about
old ones. If an I2RS client does an operation to remove some state,
that state is removed and the I2RS agent stores no more information
about it. This allows any interested party to determine what the
current effect of I2RS on the system is, and why. Meaningful logging
is also recommended.
The I2RS Agent will not attempt to retain or reapply state across
routing element reboot. Determination of whether state still applies
depends heavily on the causes of reboots, and reapplication is at
least as likely to cause problems as it is to provide for correct
operation. [[Editor's note: This topics needs more discussion in the
working group.]]
5.2.1. Starting and Ending
An I2RS client applies changes via the I2RS interface based on policy
and other application inputs. While these changes may be of the form
"do this now, and leave it there forever", they are frequently driven
by other conditions which may have start times, stop times, or are
only to be used under certain conditions. The I2RS interface
protocol could be designed to allow an I2RS Client to provide a wide
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
range of such conditional information to the I2RS Agent for
application. At the other extreme, the I2RS client could provide all
such functionality based on its own clocking and network event
reporting from the relevant I2RS Agents.
Given that the complexity of possible conditions is very large, and
that some conditions may even cross network element boundaries,
clearly some degree of handling must be provided on the I2RS client.
As such, in this architecture it is assumed that all the complexity
associated with this should be left to the I2RS client. This
architectural view does mean that reliability of the communication
path between the I2RS client and I2RS agent is critical. [[Editor's
note: This requires more discussion in the working group.]]
5.2.2. Reversion
An I2RS Agent may decide that some state should no longer be applied.
An I2RS Client may instruct an Agent to remove state it has applied.
In all such cases, the state will revert to what it would have been
without the I2RS; that state is generally whatever was specified via
the CLI, NetConf, SNMP, etc. I2RS Agents will not store multiple
alternative states, nor try to determine which one among such a
plurality it should fall back to. Thus, the model followed is not
like the RIB, where multiple routes are stored at different
preferences.
5.3. Interactions with Local Config
As described above, local device configuration is considered to be
separate from the I2RS data store. Thus, changes may originate from
either source. Policy (i.e. comparisons between a CLI/SNMP/NetConf
priority and a I2RS agent priority) can determine whether the local
configuration should overwrite any state written by I2RS and
attributed to a particular I2RS Client or whether I2RS as attributed
to a particular I2RS Client can overwrite local configuration state.
Simply allowing the most recent state to prevail could cause race
conditions where the final state is not repeatably deterministic.
One important aspect is that if CLI/SNMP/NetConf changes data that is
subject to monitoring or manipulating by I2RS, then the system must
be instrumented enough to provide suitable I2RS notifications of
these changes.
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
5.4. Routing Components and Associated I2RS Services
For simplicity, each logical protocol or set of functionality that be
compactly described in a separable information and data model is
considered as a separate I2RS Service. A routing element need not
implement all routing components described nor provide the associated
I2RS services. The initial services included in the I2RS
architecture are as follows.
5.4.1. Unicast and Multicast RIB and LFIB
Network elements concerned with routing IP maintain IP unicast RIBs.
Similarly, there are RIBs for IP Multicast, and a Label Information
Base (LIB) for MPLS. The I2RS Agent needs to be able to read and
write these sets of data. The I2RS data model must include models
for this information.
In particular, with regard to writing this information, the I2RS
Agent should use the same mechanisms that the routing element already
uses to handle RIB input from multiple sources, so as to compatibly
change the system state.
The multicast state added to the multicast RIB does not need to match
to well-known protocol installed state. The I2RS Agent can create
arbitrary replication state in the RIB, subject to the advertised
capabilities of the routing element.
5.4.2. IGPs, BGP and Multicast Protocols
In addition to interacting with the consolidated RIB, the I2RS agent
may need to interact with the individual routing protocols on the
device. This interaction includes a number of different kinds of
operations:
o reading the various internal rib(s) of the routing protocol is
often helpful for understanding the state of the network.
Directly writing these protocol-specific RIBs or databases is out
of scope for I2RS.
o reading the various pieces of policy information the particular
protocol instance is using to drive its operations.
o writing policy information such as interface attributes that are
specific to the routing protocol or BGP policy that may indirectly
manipulate attributes of routes carried in BGP.
o writing routes or prefixes to be advertised via the protocol.
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
o joining/removing interfaces from the multicast trees
For example, the interaction with OSPF might include modifying the
local routing element's link metrics, announcing a locally-attached
prefix, or reading some of the OSPF link-state database. However,
direct modification of of the link-state database is NOT allowed to
preserve network state consistency.
5.4.3. MPLS
The I2RS Agent will need to interact with the knobs that policy
attributes that control LDP operation as well as RSVP-TE based LSPs.
5.4.4. Policy and QoS Mechanisms
Many network elements have separate policy and QoS mechanisms,
including knobs which affect local path computation and queue control
capabilities. These capabilities vary widely across implementations,
and I2RS cannot model the full range of information collection or
manipulation of these attributes. A core set does need to be
included in the I2RS data models and in the expected interfaces
between the I2RS Agent and the network element, in order to provide
basic capabilities and the hooks for future extensibility.
6. I2RS Client Agent Interface
6.1. Protocol Structure
One could view I2RS merely as a way to talk about the existing
network management interfaces to a network element. That would be
quite limiting and would not meet the requirements elucidated
elsewhere. One could also view I2RS as a collection of protocols -
some existing and some new - that meet the needs. While that could
be made to work, the complexity of such a mechanism would be quite
high. One would need to develop means to coordinate information
across a set of protocols that were not designed to work together.
From a deployability perspective, this would not meet the goal of
simplicity. As a result, this architecture views the I2RS interface
as an interface supporting a single control and data exchange
protocol. That protocol may use several underlying transports (TCP,
SCTP, DCCP), with suitable authentication and integrity protection
mechanisms. Whatever transport is used for the data exchange, it
must also support suitable congestion control mechanisms.
6.2. Channel
The uses of a single I2RS protocol does not imply that only one
channel of communication is required. There may be a range of
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
reliability requirements, and to support the scaling there may need
to be channels originating from multiple sub-components of a routing
element. These will all use the date exchange protocol, and
establishment of additional channels for communication will be
coordinated between the I2RS client and the I2RS agent.
6.3. Negotiation
Protocol support capabilities will vary across I2RS Clients and
Routing Elements supporting I2RS Agents. As such, capability
negotiation (such as which transports are supported beyond the
minimum required to implement) will clearly be necessary. It is
important that such negotiations be kept simple and robust, as such
mechanisms are often a source of difficulty in implementation and
deployment.
Negotiation should be broken into several aspects, such as protocol
capablities and I2RS services and model types supported.
6.4. Identity and Security Role
Each I2RS Client will have an identity; it can also have secondary
identities to be used for troubleshooting. A secondary identity is
merely a unique, opaque identifier that may be helpful in
troubleshooting. Via authentication and authorization mechanisms,
the I2RS agent will have a specific scope for reading data, for
writing data, and limitations on the resources that can be consumed.
The scopes need to specify both the data and the value ranges.
6.5. Connectivity
A client does not need to maintain an active communication channel
with an agent. Therefore, an agent may need to open a communication
channel to the client to communicate previously requested
information. The lack of an active communication channel does not
imply that the associated client is non-functional. When
communication is required, the agent or client can open a new
communication channel.
State held by an agent that is owned by a client should not be
removed or cleaned up when a client is no longer communicating - even
if the agent cannot successfully open a new communication channel to
the client.
There are three different assumptions that can apply to handling dead
clients. The first is that the network applications or management
systems will detect a dead network application and either restart
that network application or clean up any state left behind. The
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
second is to allow state expiration, expressed as a policy associated
with the I2RS client's role. The state expiration could occur after
there has been no successful communication channel to or from the
I2RS client for the policy-specified duration. The third is that the
client could explicitly request state clean-up if a particular
transport session is terminated.
6.6. Notifications
As with any policy system interacting with the network, the I2RS
Agent needs to be able to receive notifications of changes in network
state. Notifications here refers to changes which are unanticipated,
represent events outside the control of the systems (such as
interface failures on controlled devices), or are sufficiently sparse
as to be anomalous in some fashion.
Such events may be of interest to multiple I2RS Clients controlling
data handled by an I2RS Agent, and to multiple other I2RS clients
which are collecting information without exerting control. The
architecture therefore requires that it be practical for I2RS Clients
to register for a range of notifications, and for the I2R Agents to
send notifications to a number of Clients.
As the I2RS is developed, it is likely that a management information-
model and data-model will be required to describe event notifications
for general or I2RS errors.
For performance and scaling by the I2RS client and general
information privacy, an I2RS Client needs to be able to register for
just the events it is interested in. It is also possible that I2RS
might might provide a stream of notifications via a publish/subscribe
mechanism that is not amenable to having the I2RS agent do the
filtering.
6.7. Information collection
One of the other important aspects of the I2RS is that it is intended
to simplify collecting information about the state of network
elements. This includes both getting a snapshot of a large amount of
data about the current state of the network element, and subscribing
to a feed of the ongoing changes to the set of data or a subset
thereof. This is considered architecturally separate from
notifications due to the differences in information rate and total
volume.
6.8. Multi-Headed Control
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
As was described earlier, an I2RS Agent interacts with multiple I2RS
Clients who are actively controlling the network element. From an
architecture and design perspective, the assumption is that by means
outside of this system the data to be manipulated within the network
element is appropriately partitioned so that any given piece of
information is only being manipulated by a single I2RS Client.
Nonetheless, unexpected interactions happen and two (or more) I2RS
clients may attempt to manipulate the same piece of data. This is
considered an error case. This architecture does not attempt to
determine what the right state of data is in such a collision Rather,
the architecture mandates that there be decidable means by which I2RS
Agents will handle the collisions. The current recommendation is to
have a simple priority associated with each I2RS clients, and the
highest priority change remains in effect. In the case of priority
ties, the first client whose attribution is associated with the data
will keep control
In order for this to be useful for I2RS Clients, it is important that
it be possible for an I2RS Client to register for changes to any I2RS
manipulatable data that it may care about. The I2RS client may then
respond to the situation as it sees fit.
6.9. Transactions
In the interest of simplicity, the I2RS architecture does not include
multi-message atomicity and rollback mechanisms. Rather, it includes
a small range of error handling for a set of operations included in a
single message. An I2RS Client may indicate one of the following
three error handling for a given message with multiple operations
which it sends to an I2RS Agent:
Perform all or none: This traditional SNMP semantic indicates that
other I2RS agent will keep enough state when handling a single
message to roll back the operations within that message. Either
all the operations will succeed, or none of them will be applied
and an error message will report the single failure which caused
the not to be applied. This is useful when there are, for
example, mutual dependencies across operations in the message.
Perform until error: In this case, the operations in the message
are applied in the specified order. When an error occurs, no
further operations are applied, and an error is returned
indicating the failure. This is useful if there are dependencies
among the operations and they can be topologically sorted.
Perform all: In this case, the I2RS Agent will attempt to perform
all the operations in the message, and will return error
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
indications for each one that fails. This is useful when there is
no dependency across the operation, or where the client would
prefer to sort out the effect of errors on its own.
In the interest of robustness and clarity of protocol state, the
protocol will include an explicit reply to modification operations
even when they fully succeed.
7. Manageability Considerations
Manageability plays a key aspect in I2RS. Some initial examples
include:
Resource Limitations: Using I2RS, applications can consume
resources, whether those be operations in a time-frame, entries in
the RIB, stored operations to be triggered, etc. The ability to
set resource limits based upon authorization is important.
Configuration Interactions: The interaction of state installed via
the I2RS and via a router's configuration needs to be clearly
defined. As described in this architecture, a simple priority
that is configured can be used to express the desired policy.
8. Security Considerations
This framework describes interfaces that clearly require serious
consideration of security. The ability to identify, authenticate and
authorize applications that wish to install state is necessary and
briefly described in Section 3.4. Security of communications from
the applications is also required as discussed in Section 6.1.
Scopes for reading and writing data specified in the context of the
data models and the value ranges are discussed briefly in
Section 6.4.
9. IANA Considerations
This document includes no request to IANA.
10. Acknowledgements
Significant portions of this draft came from draft-ward-i2rs-
framework-00 and draft-atlas-i2rs-policy-framework-00.
The authors would like to thank Nitin Bahadur, Shane Amante, Ed
Crabbe, and Ken Gray for their suggestions and review.
11. Informative References
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft I2RS Arch July 2013
[I-D.atlas-i2rs-problem-statement]
Atlas, A., Nadeau, T., and D. Ward, "Interface to the
Routing System Problem Statement", draft-atlas-i2rs-
problem-statement-01 (work in progress), July 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Alia Atlas
Juniper Networks
10 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
USA
Email: akatlas@juniper.net
Joel Halpern
Ericsson
Email: Joel.Halpern@ericsson.com
Susan Hares
ADARA
Email: shares@ndzh.com
Dave Ward
Cisco Systems
Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: wardd@cisco.com
Thomas D. Nadeau
Juniper Networks
Email: tnadeau@juniper.net
Atlas, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 20]